Delhi District Court
State vs Pradeep Kumar on 1 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA SHARMA ADDITIONAL
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-01, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
STATE Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR
FIR No. 421/2023
PS: Pahar Ganj
U/s 188 IPC
Date of Institution of case : 01.12.2023
Date of Judgment reserved : 19.03.2024
Date on which judgment pronounced : 01.04.2024
JUDGMENT
1. CASE Number : 15110/2023
2. Date of commission of offence: 13.06.2023
3. Name of complainant : HC KARAMPAL
No. 2426/C, PS-
Pahar Ganj, Delhi.
4. Name and address of accused : PRADEEP KUMAR S/o Sh. Rameshwar Dayal R/o 2287, Sarai Barf Khana Kodiya Pul North Delhi-110006.
5. Offence complained of : U/s 188 IPC or proved
6. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final Order : ACQUITTED CASE No. 15110/2023 FIR No. 421/2023 PS- Pahar Ganj State Vs. Pradeep Kumar Page 1/14 BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the final outcome in the FIR No. 421/2023, registered at Police Station: Pahar Ganj, wherein alleging the commission of the offence punishable under section 188 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (shall be referred to as 'IPC' in short).
PROSECUTION CASE
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.06.2023, at about 07:20 pm, PW1/HC Karampal alongwith HC Indraj were on patrolling duty. At about 07.20 pm, when they reached at T223, DBG Road, Near Om Hotel, Pahar Ganj, Delhi, they where they found one person namely Ranjeet, employed as servant in the said salon, without due police verification and thereby the order No. 560-620/ACP/Paharganj, dated 28.05.2023 Ex. A6, promulgated under Section 144 of The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (shall be referred to as 'Cr.P.C' in short) by ACP, Pahar Ganj, Delhi has been disobeyed. Hence, the instant FIR was registered against Pradeep Kumar, the owner of the said salon.
3. Investigation was conducted. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court on 01.12.2023, against Pradeep Kumar for the alleged commission of the offence punishable under section 188, IPC.
4. Thereafter, five witnesses were cited to be examined to prove its case by the prosecution.
CASE No. 15110/2023 FIR No. 421/2023 PS- Pahar Ganj State Vs. Pradeep Kumar Page 2/145. On 01.12.2023, cognizance of offence was taken and the accused person was summoned. Accused put in an appearance in the Court. Copy of charge-sheet was supplied to him.
NOTICE U/s 251 Cr.P.C
6. On 01.03.2024, Notice in terms of section 251 Cr.P.C was served upon the accused for the alleged commission of the offence punishable under sections 188 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Therefore, further proceedings were carried out to record the evidence of prosecution.
ADMISSION AND DENIAL STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED IN TERMS OF PROVISION OF SECTION 294 Cr.P.C.
7. The accused person has not disputed the genuineness of FIR Ex. A1, Certificate U/s 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act Ex. A2, Endorsement on rukka Ex. A3, DD No. 61A dated 13.06.2023 Ex. A4, DD No. 54A dated 14.06.2023 Ex. A5, Order of ACP dated 28.05.2023 Ex. A6 and complaint U/s 195 Cr.PC Ex. A7. Therefore, the name of DO/ASI Bir Singh and SO to ACP/ Pahar Ganj, were dropped from the list of witnesses.
8. It is pertinent to note that PW/HC Indraj was dropped from the list of witnesses on the submissions of Ld. APP for the State that he is the repeat witness and the relevant documents CASE No. 15110/2023 FIR No. 421/2023 PS- Pahar Ganj State Vs. Pradeep Kumar Page 3/14 have already been exhibited during the testimony of PW1/HC Karampal.
WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PROSECUTION
9. HC Karampal was examined as PW1 and PW2/Sh. Ranjit Sharma was examined as PW2. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 14.03.2024.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED PERSON
10. Statement of the accused has been recorded in terms of provisions of Section 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. He stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated that he was not aware of the said notification. Accused opted not to lead evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
11. Final arguments have been heard. Records have been perused and considered.
12. The Ld. APP for the State has submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt as the disobedience of the said order, Ex. A6, by accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and accused is liable to be convicted in this case.
CASE No. 15110/2023 FIR No. 421/2023 PS- Pahar Ganj State Vs. Pradeep Kumar Page 4/14On the other hand, Ld. LAC for accused, in crux, has vehemently submitted that the accused was not having any knowledge about the promulgation of order, Ex. A6, and that he has been falsely implicated. It has been submitted that when the accused was not having any knowledge about the promulgation of the order, he cannot be convicted. Ld. LAC for accused has pleaded for the acquittal of the accused.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
13. Before I proceed with the adjudicatory evaluation of material available on record and comment upon the merits, I deem it appropriate to take on record the brief testimony of the prosecution witness.
14. As deposed by the PW1/HC Karampal, that on 13.06.2023, he alongwith HC Indraj were on patrolling duty in the area of PS Paharganj with respect to tenant/servant verification. At around 07:20 PM, they both reached at Golden Salon, T223, DBG Road, Near Om Hotel, Pahar Ganj, Delhi, where they found that one person, namely, Ranjeet Sharma, who was servant at the abovesaid address. On inquiry, he stated that he was working in the salon and his police verification had not been done by the owner of of the salon, namely, Pradeep Kumar and accused Pradeep Kumar has violated the notification no. 560-620/ACP/Paharganj dated 28.05.2023 whereby the police verification of employees are mandatory. Thereafter, PW1 CASE No. 15110/2023 FIR No. 421/2023 PS- Pahar Ganj State Vs. Pradeep Kumar Page 5/14 prepared a rukka Ex. PW1/A and handed over the same to HC Indraj for registration of FIR under Section 188 IPC against accused. Accordingly, HC Indraj went to PS and got FIR registered. After registration of FIR, HC Indraj returned to the spot alongwith the original rukka and the copy of FIR and certificate 65B of Indian Evidence Act and handed over the same to PW1. PW1 prepared site plan Ex. PW1/B. Thereafter, PW1 served notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. to accused Ex. PW1/C. A pabandinama was also got executed by accused, Ex. PW1/D. PW1 also obtained the complaint U/s 195 Cr.PC, Ex. A7 and recorded the statement of witnesses. After completion of investigation, PW1/HC Karampal filed the charge-sheet in the Court.
Witness was cross-examined by the Ld. LAC for accused.
15. As deposed by PW2/Sh. Ranjit Sharma, that at the time of incident, he was working with accused who was running a salon at property no. 233, DBG Gupta Road, Near Om Hotel, Pahar Ganj. He was doing work of sweeper in the salon of accused. During his employment, he had given copy of my Aadhar Card to the owner of accused for police verification but his police verification was not got done by him. Police recorded his statement, Ex. PW2/A. PW2 further submitted that two-three months ago from today, he had left the said job from the salon of accused Pradeep Kumar.
Witness was cross-examined by the Ld. LAC for accused.
CASE No. 15110/2023 FIR No. 421/2023 PS- Pahar Ganj State Vs. Pradeep Kumar Page 6/14 16.RELEVANT LAW AND PROVISIONS
17. "Section 188 IPC: Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.--
"Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple impris- onment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Explanation.-- It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is CASE No. 15110/2023 FIR No. 421/2023 PS- Pahar Ganj State Vs. Pradeep Kumar Page 7/14 sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm....."
"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "
EXAMINATION OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE EVIDENCE
18. In the instant case, the prosecution has alleged disobedience by the accused of the said order no. 560- 620/ACP /Pahar Ganj dated 28.05.2023 Ex. A6.
19. Relevant portion of the order dated, 28.05.2023, Ex.A6, reads as under:-
"Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me by section 144 criminal procedure code, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974) read with Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and New Delhi's Notification no. U-11036/ (i) UTL, dated 09.09.2010, I, NARESH KHANKA, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sub -Division Paharganj do hereby make this written order for strict compliance by the Owner/ Manager/ Leaser/ Caretaker of all such establishments of Hotels/ Guest Houses/ Hostels/ Paying Guest Accommodations/ institutions/ PG's/ Women hostels etc in the jurisdiction of Sub Division Pahar Ganj, Central District, Delhi, who shall within the period of 2 months from the date of publication of this order:CASE No. 15110/2023 FIR No. 421/2023 PS- Pahar Ganj State Vs. Pradeep Kumar Page 8/14
(a) Install good quality of CCTV cameras in sufficient numbers and recording system with play back facility, to cover the area outside such Hotels/ Guest Houses/ Hostels/ paying guest Accommodations/ institutions/ PG's. The CCTV should monitor anyone entering or loitering outside such premises.
(b) ....xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(c) .....xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(d) .....xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(e) Ensure deployment of security guard at the Main Gate entry.
(f) Ensure checking of Guests/ visitors at main gate with DFMDs/ HHMDs with trained staff.
.....xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx This order shall come into force with effect from 28.05.2023 and shall remain in force for a period of 60 days upto 26.07.2023 (both days inclusive) unless withdrawn earlier.
Any such Hotels/Guest Houses/ Hostel/paying guest Accommodations/ institutions/ PG's/ Women hostel etc girl schools/ colleges, PG's for girl students and women (working) & girl hostels, which contravenes this order shall be liable to be punished in accordance with the provision of section 188 of the Indian Penal Code: and As notice cannot be served individually on all concerned, the order is hereby passed ex-parte. It shall be published for the information of the public through the press and by affixing copies on the notice boards of the offices of all DCsP, Addl.
CASE No. 15110/2023 FIR No. 421/2023 PS- Pahar Ganj State Vs. Pradeep Kumar Page 9/14DCsP, ACsP, Tehsil offices, all Police Stations concerned and the offices of NDMC & MCD.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
20. So far as the power of the ACP, Sub-division, Pahar Ganj, to promulgate the aforesaid order is concerned, the same is not in issue.
21. As submitted by the Ld. LAC for accused, the promulgation of the said order, Ex. A6, was not in knowledge of the accused. It would be apt to note the authoritative pronouncement made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhoop Singh Tyagi v. State, 2002 SCC Online Del 277. It has been observed in that judgment that in order to secure conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 188 IPC, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that (i) there was an order promulgated by a public servant, (ii) such public servant was lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, (iii) The accused necessarily had the knowledge of such order directing them to abstain from an act or to take certain order with certain property in their possession or under their management, (iv) The accused have disobeyed the order having its knowledge, (v) Such disobedience caused or tended to cause (a) obstruction, annoyance or injury or risk of it to any person lawfully employed or (b) danger to human life, health and safety.
CASE No. 15110/2023 FIR No. 421/2023 PS- Pahar Ganj State Vs. Pradeep Kumar Page 10/1422. It may be noted that the word 'promulgate' mentioned in section 188 IPC means "making known to the public, to publish, to officially announce. Form of publication may be different but prosecution has to prima facie indicate by placing some material on record to show that the order had been actually 'promulgated'. Where an order u/s 144 CrPC is not served in the manner prescribed under the law, section 188 shall not be applicable. If an accused does not know that an order has been promulgated, the requirement of the Section are not fulfilled.
23. In the present case, in the FIR, it is not mentioned that accused had knowledge of order promulgated by the ACP Ex. A6. In the entire charge-sheet, it has not even been asserted that the alleged order was published or publicized in the locality where the accused resided. Further, neither in charge-sheet nor during evidence has the prosecution been able to produce any evidence to show that accused had actual knowledge of the aforesaid order promulgated by the ACP concerned.
24. The prosecution has also failed to produce copy of any newspaper etc. wherein such order may have been published. Prosecution also failed to mention the name of the newspaper and date of publication of order in question. It has not even produced any photographs of the said order affixed on any notice board of any of the offices mentioned in the order of the ACP. Thus, there is no evidence produced by the prosecution to show CASE No. 15110/2023 FIR No. 421/2023 PS- Pahar Ganj State Vs. Pradeep Kumar Page 11/14 that the notification in question was ever published in any newspaper, affixed on notice boards of any of the offices specified in the order Ex. A6 or given any publicity in the general public on radio or T.V. Accordingly, presumption of knowledge of the order Ex. A6, cannot be attributed to the accused.
25. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove one of the essential ingredients that the accused had the knowledge of such order and having its knowledge he had disobeyed the order Ex. A6, which is essential to secure the conviction of the accused as observed above.
26. Further, a bare perusal of the said order Ex. A6, reveals that the said order was prospective in nature and was effective from 28.05.2023. The said order provided two months time to the owner of a hotel to deploy security guards at the main gate entry of a hotel. As per the case of prosecution, the alleged offence was committed on 13.06.2023 and thus, before the expiry of the said period of two months provided by the said order to deploy a guard.
27. No disobedience can be said to have been committed by the owner for non deployment of a guard within the period of two months from the date of coming into force of the said order.
CASE No. 15110/2023 FIR No. 421/2023 PS- Pahar Ganj State Vs. Pradeep Kumar Page 12/14Thus, the accused cannot be said to have disobeyed the said order Ex. A6.
28. It is cardinal principle of law that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the case of the prosecution should stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused. It is apt to refer to the following observation in the case of Sadhu Singh V/s State of Punjab 1997 (3) Crime 55:
"In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused."
CONCLUSION
29. In view of the above examination of the evidence and material available on record, it is observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt of which the accused faced the trial. Therefore, accused PRADEEP KUMAR, is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable U/s 188 IPC of which he faced the trial.
CASE No. 15110/2023 FIR No. 421/2023 PS- Pahar Ganj State Vs. Pradeep Kumar Page 13/1430. Bail bond in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C has been already obtained from the accused (since acquitted) in compliance of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in "State Vs. Virender Yadav & Anr. 2014 I A.D (Del.) 389".
Digitally
Announced in the open Court today signed by
RICHA
i.e. 01.04.2024 RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2024.04.01
16:16:26
+0530
(RICHA SHARMA)
ACMM-1(CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS/ DELHI
CASE No. 15110/2023
FIR No. 421/2023
PS- Pahar Ganj State Vs. Pradeep Kumar Page 14/14